Excess and Surplus Lines

Subscribe to Excess and Surplus Lines via RSS

A Massachusetts federal judge has found that violations of a fee-sharing agreement between a lawyer and his former firm do not constitute legal services, and therefore do not fall within the scope of coverage afforded by the lawyer’s professional malpractice policy.
Read More Fee Dispute Between Lawyer and Former Firm Not Covered by E&O Policy

This updates our May 13, 2010 blog posting.  Last month, the New Jersey legislature passed the “Reinsurance and Surplus Lines Stimulus and Enhancement Act” (A2670, the “Act”).  The Act amends state law to permit surplus lines insurers domiciled in New Jersey to write surplus lines insurance in the state.  This would make New Jersey the second state in the U.S. after Illinois to allow its domestic surplus lines companies to write insurance in the home state’s surplus lines market. …
Read More New Jersey Passes Legislation to Ease Restrictions on Surplus Lines and Credit for Reinsurance

In Columbia Casualty Co. v. Gordon Trucking Inc. et al., No. 09-CV-05441, 2010 WL 5141865 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2010), a truck owned by the insured was involved in a severe car accident. The insured had a $5 million primary policy, a $5 million first layer excess policy, a $20 million second layer excess policy, and a $20 million third layer excess policy. After its initial claim review, the first layer excess carrier told the insured that it did not believe its layer would be impacted by the underlying personal injury suit arising from the car accident. …
Read More Excess Insurer Required to Show Actual Prejudice to Avoid Paying Settlement it did not Consent to

We recently blogged about the Second Circuit’s decision in Arrowood Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Westport Ins. Corp., No. 10-cv-0397 (2d Cir. 2010), in which an appellate panel held that a reinsurer had no obligation to indemnify its cedent for losses outside the scope of the treaty at issue.  Click here to review a copy of that blog post.
Read More Second Circuit Denies Cedent’s Motion for a Rehearing in Follow the Fortunes Case

We previously blogged about the District of Connecticut’s decision in Arrowood Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Westport Ins. Corp., No. 08-cv-1393 (D. Conn. 2010), in which the court held that a reinsurer had no duty to honor the portion of a cedent’s loss that was outside the scope of the reinsurance agreement at issue.  In that case, Equity Residential argued that a policy issued to it by Arrowood Surplus Lines Insurance Company had a three-year period and sought coverage for losses that occurred from December 15, 1999 to December 15, 2002.
Read More Second Circuit Finds that Portion of Cedent’s Loss is Outside the Scope of the Reinsurance Agreement, Relieving Reinsurer of any Obligation to Follow the Fortunes

On September 30, 2010, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed a superior court ruling that California Constitution Section 28 taxes do not apply to surplus lines insurers.  Section 28 provides that insurers doing business in California are subject to a 2.35% premium tax. …
Read More California Appeals Court Affirms Ruling That Section 28 Tax Does Not Apply To Surplus Lines Insurers